Romney: "President Obama attacks success. Therefore, under President Obama, we have less success." Agree or disagree?
JenSemPa
2012/07/20 00:05:08
|
|
|||||
|
42 votes
|
|
84% | |||
|
8 votes
|
|
16% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
Mitt Romney believes in the power of individual ingenuity, free enterprise, and competition; Barack Obama believes in the collective, the state, and socialization. Yes, plenty of people work long hours at difficult jobs, and we all pay taxes for the infrastructure and justice system that mean we can reliably conduct business with one another; but as Charles Krauthammer points out, those are constant variables, not the roots of success.
Later, have a good evening
Correction Day 2012 - Nov 6th
“For America to develop its full potential, its leaders must emulate and encourage the character development and individual success of its citizens.
Right now, however, (President Obama), assisted by his political and media allies, bombards Americans with the erroneous and disempowering message that success only happens to the privileged and fortunate few.”
“Fortunately, most of us still grasps the truth that success is within our control and that we are in charge of our destiny. In a Pew Research Center poll, 67 percent of Americans rejected the notion that success is determined by forces outside their control. And according to Rasmussen Reports, 70 percent of likely votes now favor a government that offers fewer services and imposes lower taxes over one that provides more services with higher taxes.”
ref: Tommy Newberry, The War on Success, (Washington, DC: Regnery Press, 2010), p. 149.
“‘The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.’ – Cicero (55 BC)” (Ibid, p. 193)
Even if both statements are true, (and that is an assumption -- Obama only "attacked" success in Romney's recent snippet that was taken out of context. And what are we "less" successful than? Than 2008 when stocks were tanking and large companies were collapsing? Or than 1998, when Clinton lead us through one of the more prosperous years we'd seen in modern memory?), it's still a logical fallacy.
The fallacy is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" or fallacy of assumed correlation. If A is true, and B is true, then we ASSUME that A caused B.
The Clinton-era prosperity was largely the result of a) the dot-com bubble, b) Reagan's tax cuts kicking in full blast, and c) a Republican Congress. Clinton had little to do with it.
Face it: Liberal policies hurt the economy. Conservative policies help it.
Source: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2...
Unemployment is still a large problem, and we need to look especially at our manufacturing states -- manufacturing industry is a key indicator of economic growth, and for two years in a row our manufacturing has been at the forefront of our job creation (healthcare industry as well, but this requires schooling and creates student debt, which is also a concern). The source link is an excellent blog resource by a professor at UMich. Things aren't excellent, and trends are shallow, but there is a downward trend in unemployment. This professor is adamant that we have to thank anything that's "made in America" for this trend and I think he's right in this assessment: manufacturing has lead economic growth in the U.S. economy in every non-recession year for the last 15 years.
Anyway, coming back from that tangent, I do find it interesting that you put all blame on Obama's shoulders for the economy in these years, but credit Clinton's economic success to all others EXCEPT him -- why so inconsistent in your stances? I don't deny that the whole of the government has influence in economic decisions, but the "captain of the ship" (the leader) is the one to hold responsible -- for both failures and successes.
I am moderate, and feel that EITHER lib...
Source: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2...
Unemployment is still a large problem, and we need to look especially at our manufacturing states -- manufacturing industry is a key indicator of economic growth, and for two years in a row our manufacturing has been at the forefront of our job creation (healthcare industry as well, but this requires schooling and creates student debt, which is also a concern). The source link is an excellent blog resource by a professor at UMich. Things aren't excellent, and trends are shallow, but there is a downward trend in unemployment. This professor is adamant that we have to thank anything that's "made in America" for this trend and I think he's right in this assessment: manufacturing has lead economic growth in the U.S. economy in every non-recession year for the last 15 years.
Anyway, coming back from that tangent, I do find it interesting that you put all blame on Obama's shoulders for the economy in these years, but credit Clinton's economic success to all others EXCEPT him -- why so inconsistent in your stances? I don't deny that the whole of the government has influence in economic decisions, but the "captain of the ship" (the leader) is the one to hold responsible -- for both failures and successes.
I am moderate, and feel that EITHER liberal or conservative policies can help or hurt the economy depending on the situation and what exactly the nation is facing. And, I guess the take away message from my opinion above is that politicians, regardless of their party, need to avoid logical fallacies. It belittles the American people to think we are so simple as not to notice.
Correction Day 2012 - Nov 6th
We went from "Hope and Change" to your implication that we should just be satisfied with what we have. Such a lowering of electoral standards is quite revealing.
just the other day he was trying to kiss up to independents by saying he wasn't worried about the rich in this county because they will be fine. he said the same thing a few months ago about the poor. now, he wants to focus on the middle class only because he has heard Obama focus on the middle class...
They undermine the free market, limit competition, and keep the job market saturated, which keeps wages down. They necessarily create barriers that keep anyone of modest income from gainfully employing themselves, which keeps us all dependent on jobs and/or welfare.
But it's a benefit to government because it greatly simplifies the collection of income taxes. Most people don't even care how much liberty they've lost when they have a good job and a good income. Only when they find themselves unemployed and unable to employ themselves does reality hit.
he appeared to be attacking capitolism ' or folks who have accomplished great feats without outside help of govt . financing or help ..
but they didnt accomplish that on their own ...shot himself in the foot !
he may have some programmed "hypnotized " but the majority of hard working folks see right through him ...he knows hes in trouble !!
http://blog.heritage.org/2012...
http://news.yahoo.com/nfib-re...
Nothing but Excuses, just Cannot accept ODUMBO Said it...
he did mean what he said ...this was to reinforce his prevous stance of communism becomming a standard !
There was a Poll about Him saying it...Of coures all the LIB's Denied Him saying it...Then I posted his portion of the speach saying it...to set them up...then thay came back saying it was edited, He did Not say it...
So then I posted the Entire Speech and refered to that paragraph, pointing out it had Not been edited....then the Stuoid LIB's come back making excuses for Him...Not knowing each had been set up to Look Dumber each time...some of these are the Most Vocal...
Loved screwing with the Little Bit of Brain matter they have...lol~!!! :-)